Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in failing to consider adequately the Appellant¡¯s evidence, noting she was not given the opportunity to prove her case, including allegations of discrimination, at the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT hearing, which included the opportunity to call evidence and to challenge the Administration¡¯s evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law in allowing testimony to be given at the hearing that was neither sworn, affirmed, nor made under a promise, to tell the truth. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT allowed the appeal, set aside the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and ordered reinstatement or the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement in...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the counsel of the Secretary-General had not been notified of the hearing date due to a technical error in the e-mail communication, which prejudiced seriously the Secretary-General¡¯s defence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, therefore, that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment should be set aside, and the matter retried afresh. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment. The case was remanded to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT to be heard afresh.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the issues raised on appeal did not require further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the submission from the Secretary-General that the appeal was time-barred since the appeal was a corrected appeal and, therefore, conform to the requirements of Article 8 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to identify one of the five grounds of appeal which could give legal basis to her appeal and that her arguments were the same made before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to establish how Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred on questions of...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since there was no need for further clarification of the issues arising from the appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the appeal was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because the application was brought before the wrong tribunal and the application should have been brought before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had correctly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to receive the application because...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing since the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s judgment that the application was not receivable ratione materiae. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT summary judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing and production of documents, to substantiate his claims of bias and discrimination against him, finding that a complaint of bias and discrimination was not receivable as it consisted of a series of past issues in respect of which he should have sought redress at the appropriate time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT stressed that it was not the task of the JAB or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT to conduct a fresh investigation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the motion for submission of additional documentation, finding no need for further evidence pursuant to Article 10. 1 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT RoP and no...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal had already been clearly defined by the parties and there was no need for further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate the existence of any exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing finding that the appeal had been clearly defined and that there was no need for further clarification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the motion to file additional pleadings and additional evidence since the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any existence of exceptional circumstances that justified the need to file additional pleadings or to submit additional evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion only presented factual and legal contentions that reiterated arguments made in the appeal brief. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT further held that the Appellant had failed in his grounds of appeal...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was essentially an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding that it was not necessary or would assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. With regards to the motion to extend the Appellant¡¯s rights as a staff member, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no exceptional circumstances that would warrant the granting of the motion and the motion was an attempt to supplement arguments already made in the appeal submissions. With regards to the motion to have Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remove immunity from certain staff members should her appeal fail, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion was entirely misconceived, as such a request...